Former State Department employee hired to be "email czar"

[ihhawk]

So it looks like John Kerry has hired a former State Department employee to be in charge of the release of the Clinton emails that are court ordered. She is supposed to improve the efficiency of the release and also improve transparency. It was quickly discovered that this person worked for Hillary as well as donated $2500 to her Presidential campaign in June.

Cant make that crap up.

 

[cigaretteman]

So it looks like John Kerry has hired a former State Department employee to be in charge of the release of the Clinton emails that are court ordered. She is supposed to improve the efficiency of the release and also improve transparency. It was quickly discovered that this person worked for Hillary as well as donated $2500 to her Presidential campaign in June.

Cant make that crap up.

Yawn.

 

[73chief]

Also, after the CIA review of the initial two classified emails found by the inspector general's review of Hillary's first batch, they confirmed that each was top secret and was top secret at creation. This strengthens the case for her violation of the Espionage Act. the CIA and NSA are now reviewing the others. Her potential legal issues just got more severe.

We can now add the New York Times, Baltimore Sun, and Tom Brokaw to the right-wing conspiracy going after Hillary on this issue.

Great article listing the timeline of her lies and possible legal violations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-clinton-emails-20150907-story.html

 

[22*43*51]

Government efficiency at it finest.

 

[ihhawk]

It looks like she had TOP SECRET North Korea Nuclear information on the server. That was confirmed by the CIA. That will be interesting to explain away.

 

[Joes Place]

Also, after the CIA review of the initial two classified emails found by the inspector general's review of Hillary's first batch, they confirmed that each was top secret and was top secret at creation. This strengthens the case for her violation of the Espionage Act. the CIA and NSA are now reviewing the others. Her potential legal issues just got more severe.

We can now add the New York Times, Baltimore Sun, and Tom Brokaw to the right-wing conspiracy going after Hillary on this issue.

Great article listing the timeline of her lies and possible legal violations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-goldberg-clinton-emails-20150907-story.html

1. An 'Op-Ed' in a newspaper regarding the issue is rarely a legitimate source of factual information on any sort of political issue. I don't see anything in your link that qualifies as legitimate 'news'.

2. Does anyone REALLY think that one of the richest countries in the free world, with some of the most sophisticated surveillance methods and computer/internet infrastructure cannot prevent 'classified' materials from being E-mailed out to anyone's "@yahoo.com" account??!!! I mean, seriously!??? If our government's own servers cannot auto-block information sent from government email addresses with a checkmark as "Classified" or "Top Secret", then we have MUCH more serious issues than just Hillary Clinton and her email account!

3. No one has indicated that her account setup was outside of any government policy; if there IS a policy preventing what she did, I have yet to hear a legitimate critic bring it up. The ONLY caveat to that point is if HC herself was able to 'set' the email policy for the State Dept, and if she was able to override traditional policies and essentially 'self approve' her own email setup. If THAT is the case, then she SHOULD be held accountable for anything leaked to her personal account address.

4. Just about everyone is aware that random emails sent across the Internet are interceptable and can be read by anyone along the route. There is simply NO WAY that any federal agency should have been sending or CC'ing anything remotely secret to any email address outside of the government's intranet. This is how most all major company email systems work - there's no way for anyone outside the company to 'see' or 'intercept' internal company emails without doing some serious hacking. This is not true for emails sent thru generic accounts. You get your company emails via a VPN connection to the servers, not thru regular 'internet'.

Thus, I have yet to see anything that appears to be a legitimate concern regarding HC's email 'scandal'.

And, no, I'm not a HC supporter, although I believe she poses the biggest threat to any of the GOP hopefuls at this point. That may change if any ACTUAL problems are identified with her emails (as I've outlined above). Even if that were to be the outcome here, I struggle to see Bernie Sanders sneaking out a Dem nomination from her - the Clinton machine has too much influence and money.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Joel - it's called a TLS connection= Transport Layer Security that keeps emails that are properly encrypted, encrypted. I deal with this at my current job and did so in the military as well.

 

[73chief]

1. An 'Op-Ed' in a newspaper regarding the issue is rarely a legitimate source of factual information on any sort of political issue. I don't see anything in your link that qualifies as legitimate 'news'.

2. Does anyone REALLY think that one of the richest countries in the free world, with some of the most sophisticated surveillance methods and computer/internet infrastructure cannot prevent 'classified' materials from being E-mailed out to anyone's "@yahoo.com" account??!!! I mean, seriously!??? If our government's own servers cannot auto-block information sent from government email addresses with a checkmark as "Classified" or "Top Secret", then we have MUCH more serious issues than just Hillary Clinton and her email account!

3. No one has indicated that her account setup was outside of any government policy; if there IS a policy preventing what she did, I have yet to hear a legitimate critic bring it up. The ONLY caveat to that point is if HC herself was able to 'set' the email policy for the State Dept, and if she was able to override traditional policies and essentially 'self approve' her own email setup. If THAT is the case, then she SHOULD be held accountable for anything leaked to her personal account address.

4. Just about everyone is aware that random emails sent across the Internet are interceptable and can be read by anyone along the route. There is simply NO WAY that any federal agency should have been sending or CC'ing anything remotely secret to any email address outside of the government's intranet. This is how most all major company email systems work - there's no way for anyone outside the company to 'see' or 'intercept' internal company emails without doing some serious hacking. This is not true for emails sent thru generic accounts. You get your company emails via a VPN connection to the servers, not thru regular 'internet'.

Thus, I have yet to see anything that appears to be a legitimate concern regarding HC's email 'scandal'.

And, no, I'm not a HC supporter, although I believe she poses the biggest threat to any of the GOP hopefuls at this point. That may change if any ACTUAL problems are identified with her emails (as I've outlined above). Even if that were to be the outcome here, I struggle to see Bernie Sanders sneaking out a Dem nomination from her - the Clinton machine has too much influence and money.

Well a Federal Judge disagrees with your point #3.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-push-state-fbi-expand-probe-clinton-email-server/

This has been all over the news and if you are honestly saying you "have yet to hear a legitimate critic bring it up" then you are not paying attention. A Federal Judge has brought it up, the inspector general for national security has brought it up, the FBI has brought it up, and now the CIA and the NSA have brought it up.

This is frankly old news.

Continue to live in fantasy land

 

[Joes Place]

Well a Federal Judge disagrees with your point #3.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-push-state-fbi-expand-probe-clinton-email-server/

This has been all over the news and if you are honestly saying you "have yet to hear a legitimate critic bring it up" then you are not paying attention. A Federal Judge has brought it up, the inspector general for national security has brought it up, the FBI has brought it up, and now the CIA and the NSA have brought it up.

This is frankly old news.

Continue to live in fantasy land

Not sure how to make this more clear to you, but if her use of a personal account was 'against government policy', then any email being sent from a government account or official should have been blocked internally, following standard government policy. The simple fact that everyone was able to function and send government emails back/forth implies that this was a legitimate (if not common) practice. If not, then why did the government IT people allow it to perpetuate for years? No company I've ever worked for ever allowed you to send any internal company information on an account other than your assigned company account - if that is government policy, then she should not have been able to receive any of the emails she was apparently getting.

So, something doesn't add up with many of the stories being blown up regarding this issue. I completely agree that it was a bad idea for her to set it up in the first place (and I'm sure it was done to avoid some of the oversight and accountability associated with a government account). I'm not defending her on that point in the least. I'm simply stating that many of the claims being tossed about are all politically motivated and mostly factually devoid of merit.

I'll await rulings from the government agencies entrusted with the investigation and responsible for addressing the issue. IF her setting up the account was a major policy violation, then anything IN the emails is virtually irrelevant - it was a fundamental no-no. But as that doesn't seem to be the focus of any of the government investigations (what's IN the emails is what they are looking at), it implies that there was no official/formal policy with how she set it up. And again, if she set it up by 'signing off' on that policy which she could then take advantage of, that is a different story.

 

[Joes Place]

...and from the NYT article of Aug 14:

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.
They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.
​

Any information on 'unclassified systems' that got forwarded to her personal account is a problem further upstream, not with Clinton's system. That information, once it's on unclassified servers/systems, is probably already 'public knowledge' among any other foreign intelligence services. Blaming HC's server/system is simply making a scene after the horse is out of the barn.

The F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.
Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
​

Perhaps 'marginal consequence' gets her an 'out' politically, but if it turns out she DID circumvent policy and break the law, the relative sensitivity of the classified information is irrelevant. She'd have problems.

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no classified information — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with the investigation. But in reviewing a sampling of the emails for potential security breaches, Mr. McCullough said he found four out of 40 that contained classified information, though perhaps stripped of any indication that it was of classified origin.
​

That aspect of the issue has nothing to do with Clinton's server; someone else sent possibly unlabeled, classified information from an UN-classified/UN-secure system TO Clinton's email. THAT is where the actual breach source started, and is apparently where the primary investigation is focused.

Mrs. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told CBS News this week that “it is very likely” that Russian or Chinese hackers read his emails, although he did not specify whether he was talking about his classified or unclassified accounts. “I certainly write things with that awareness,” he said.
​

This is completely consistent with what I've stated - ANY information sent thru outside email off secured, internal government servers is PRESUMED to be hackable by other entities. This likely INCLUDES generic government email addresses, making the accusations about her personal server/email address pretty much irrelevant.

So, unless HC personally sent and initiated the sending of classified information over her unsecure email, I don't really see big problems here at this stage. And, for all we know, various government departments, including the State Department, may INTENTIONALLY send misleading and false 'classified' information over non-secure email channels, just to strew around a bunch of bread crumbs that don't actually point anywhere....

 

[22*43*51]

Not sure how to make this more clear to you, but if her use of a personal account was 'against government policy', then any email being sent from a government account or official should have been blocked internally, following standard government policy. The simple fact that everyone was able to function and send government emails back/forth implies that this was a legitimate (if not common) practice. If not, then why did the government IT people allow it to perpetuate for years? No company I've ever worked for ever allowed you to send any internal company information on an account other than your assigned company account - if that is government policy, then she should not have been able to receive any of the emails she was apparently getting.

So, something doesn't add up with many of the stories being blown up regarding this issue. I completely agree that it was a bad idea for her to set it up in the first place (and I'm sure it was done to avoid some of the oversight and accountability associated with a government account). I'm not defending her on that point in the least. I'm simply stating that many of the claims being tossed about are all politically motivated and mostly factually devoid of merit.

I'll await rulings from the government agencies entrusted with the investigation and responsible for addressing the issue. IF her setting up the account was a major policy violation, then anything IN the emails is virtually irrelevant - it was a fundamental no-no. But as that doesn't seem to be the focus of any of the government investigations (what's IN the emails is what they are looking at), it implies that there was no official/formal policy with how she set it up. And again, if she set it up by 'signing off' on that policy which she could then take advantage of, that is a different story.

It was/is against State Department policy to have a personal server. That has been established.

If you are trying to illustrate the Government's incompetence relative to internal security... Well, I agree with you and Hillary.

 

[timinatoria]

Yawn.

If the political parties were reversed your head would explode.

That's why your a hack.

 

[ICParrent]

Anyone that holds a security clearance receives training on how to handle data/information. The higher the level of clearance, the more extensive the training. I don't care what your industry is, the handling of secret/sensitive/safeguards information is very similar. The most sensitive information is always stored, electronically, in an isolated computer or computer network. A person that has been trained/cleared will know if data is covered by a security protocol no matter what the format. Meaning, if a group of people are discussing a topic and the discussion illuminates information covered under a security protocol immediate action must be taken to "secure" the discussion based on the level of clearance. Same goes for hard copy information or electronic information. When the trained/knowledgeable person encounters the information, they are required to put that information in its appropriate secure location.

This is really the crux of the issue. She and several of her staff were trained at the highest level of security clearance. They would absolutely know, on sight, information that was classified and would be required to secure the information.

Don't believe me, I don't care. Just ask your banker or doctor what training and requirements that they have just to comply with the basic rules of Sarbanes-Oxley and HIPPA.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

despite all this she probably will never spend one day in jail, she most likely will come down with some bad health condition real soon, fake or real. nobody would imprison a sick old pathetic lady

 

[Lone Clone]

...and from the NYT article of Aug 14:

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.
They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.
​

Any information on 'unclassified systems' that got forwarded to her personal account is a problem further upstream, not with Clinton's system. That information, once it's on unclassified servers/systems, is probably already 'public knowledge' among any other foreign intelligence services. Blaming HC's server/system is simply making a scene after the horse is out of the barn.

The F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.
Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
​

Perhaps 'marginal consequence' gets her an 'out' politically, but if it turns out she DID circumvent policy and break the law, the relative sensitivity of the classified information is irrelevant. She'd have problems.

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no classified information — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with the investigation. But in reviewing a sampling of the emails for potential security breaches, Mr. McCullough said he found four out of 40 that contained classified information, though perhaps stripped of any indication that it was of classified origin.
​

That aspect of the issue has nothing to do with Clinton's server; someone else sent possibly unlabeled, classified information from an UN-classified/UN-secure system TO Clinton's email. THAT is where the actual breach source started, and is apparently where the primary investigation is focused.

Mrs. Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told CBS News this week that “it is very likely” that Russian or Chinese hackers read his emails, although he did not specify whether he was talking about his classified or unclassified accounts. “I certainly write things with that awareness,” he said.
​

This is completely consistent with what I've stated - ANY information sent thru outside email off secured, internal government servers is PRESUMED to be hackable by other entities. This likely INCLUDES generic government email addresses, making the accusations about her personal server/email address pretty much irrelevant.

So, unless HC personally sent and initiated the sending of classified information over her unsecure email, I don't really see big problems here at this stage. And, for all we know, various government departments, including the State Department, may INTENTIONALLY send misleading and false 'classified' information over non-secure email channels, just to strew around a bunch of bread crumbs that don't actually point anywhere....

The article is a month old. Among other things, it has since been established that Hillary did indeed initiate top secret correspondence on her server.

 

[ihhawk]

Please explain how the TOP SECRET information was on her server if she didn't receive info from others?

Also, doesn't is appear a little, just a little strange, that she turned over a "wiped" server to the FBI.

The liberals had a full circle jerk over a lane on a bridge being shutdown...can you imagine what the stories would be if it was Trump or Rubio with this issue.

 

[Joes Place]

The article is a month old. Among other things, it has since been established that Hillary did indeed initiate top secret correspondence on her server.

NYT's was one of the sources listed above as having 'smoking gun' information. This article from the NYT's really says nothing different (from this past Monday, 9/7):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...ation-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

It, again, states that she RECEIVED classified information to her server. The fact it went to her server is irrelevant; the point is that it was emailed AT ALL using non-secure government emails. If it had gone to her non-secure government email account, the result/problem is exactly the same - it makes no difference which external server or email it went to once off the secure systems. And, again, it was RECEIVED, not SENT.

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.
“Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”
​

Furthermore, it would not matter if she sent anything that was later considered 'classified' whether it was sent from a non-secure government email address or her personal email address; neither channel is considered 'secure'.

The mishmash of criticism regarding FOIA requests also seems rather dubious, as ANY email she sent to anyone else in a government department (i.e. TO a government email address) is by default IN their systems and ON their government servers. It would not seem to be a major problem to track emails which came from her address anywhere within the government server systems, and this means the sifting through her personal server files is somewhat redundant and unnecessary.

The only emails that would NOT be on government servers would be ones sent to other personal email addresses; IF others in the State Dept or other government functions were ALSO using personal email addresses, then it MAY make sense to search her personal emails. Otherwise, that's really not appropriate and should be considered an invasion of personal privacy.

 

[gusto79]

Please explain how the TOP SECRET information was on her server if she didn't receive info from others?

Also, doesn't is appear a little, just a little strange, that she turned over a "wiped" server to the FBI.

The liberals had a full circle jerk over a lane on a bridge being shutdown...can you imagine what the stories would be if it was Trump or Rubio with this issue.

It wouldn't bother me if we find out Trump hasn't been using a government server for his email.

 

[73chief]

It was/is against State Department policy to have a personal server[/B]. That has been established.

If you are trying to illustrate the Government's incompetence relative to internal security... Well, I agree with you and Hillary.

Bingo. This is what the issue is. Joes Place and others will never comprehend this because they are using Hillary's Campaign as their only source of information.

Tough to take a guy seriously who has still not grasped the most basic of facts.

 

[Joes Place]

Bingo. This is what the issue is. Joes Place and others will never comprehend this because they are using Hillary's Campaign as their only source of information.

Tough to take a guy seriously who has still not grasped the most basic of facts.

It has nothing to do with a 'personal server'. The issue is whether a personal email account can be used. The server is irrelevant.

And I have seen no credible claim that the use of personal email was a violation; if that is the case, why wasn't it brought up/addressed years ago?
Answer: it wasn't an issue. Because secure information is not sent not intended to be sent via any external email, govt account or not.

 

[SIXERS24]

The FBI will take Hillary down liberal excuses will not matter!

Obama wants here taken down so it will happen live with it liberals!

 

[Lone Clone]

It has nothing to do with a 'personal server'. The issue is whether a personal email account can be used. The server is irrelevant.

And I have seen no credible claim that the use of personal email was a violation; if that is the case, why wasn't it brought up/addressed years ago?
Answer: it wasn't an issue. Because secure information is not sent not intended to be sent via any external email, govt account or not.

No, it has a lot to do with the personal server, because it puts control of the information outside the government's reach.

Ron Fournier, a liberal and a longtime Clinton supporter, wrote a column for the National Journal that you really should read. I linked it in another thread, but just in case you missed it:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/62195/sorry-what-hillary?mref=home

 

[22*43*51]

And I have seen no credible claim that the use of personal email was a violation; .

I would call the State Department's Manual of Foreign Affairs(and e-mail policy within) as credible.

 

[ICParrent]

Please explain how the TOP SECRET information was on her server if she didn't receive info from others?

Also, doesn't is appear a little, just a little strange, that she turned over a "wiped" server to the FBI.

The liberals had a full circle jerk over a lane on a bridge being shutdown...can you imagine what the stories would be if it was Trump or Rubio with this issue.

If anyone with knowledge of TOP SECRET information, writes down or creates an email containing that knowledge. That work product is considered TOP SECRET and that work product must be controlled as such. All personnel holding a clearance are required to identify information and control it if it is subject to security protocol.

 

[aflachawk]

If the political parties were reversed your head would explode.

That's why your a hack.

You are right if this were a Republican, Joe eould already put them in jail and thrown away the key. A whole forest of smoke and they do not admit there might even be one tiny little fire

 

[txhawk I]

C'mon guys, she said she's sorry.

 

[Joes Place]

No, it has a lot to do with the personal server, because it puts control of the information outside the government's reach.

Ron Fournier, a liberal and a longtime Clinton supporter, wrote a column for the National Journal that you really should read. I linked it in another thread, but just in case you missed it:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/62195/sorry-what-hillary?mref=home

Uhhh.....that is the case whether the server is in Hillary's basement, or at Yahoo, Google or Centurylink. It is why email has NEVER been used by the government to send/receive formally classified information.

And that has been my point: if having and using a personal email account was against government policy, and a violation of government or State Dept policy, then why did anyone allow emails to be sent to that outside email address? That is an IT-related control, so if it violated policy, then why weren't all the outgoing emails blocked?

The simple answer is that it may not have been the PREFERRED policy, but there is apparently NOT a hard and fast rule about it, or they would NOT have allowed it to occur AT ALL.

Point #1 of your article is not relevant, because emails to and from government accounts from her personal email account ARE stored on government servers.

I completely agree that her actions were not a good idea, and if EVERY government employee starts running government communication over their personal email accounts, it DOES circumvent policies and FOIA. (I.e. Points #2 and #3 are valid) Any emails she sent to other government officials to PERSONAL email accounts, which CIRCUMVENTED government servers ARE an issue. Did that happen? Or is this investigation over emails she sent to/from other State Dept employees thru the government servers? Because that is NOT really an issue. NONE of those emails, sent via regular internet connections, are considered 'secure'.

As I presently understand the ACTUAL investigation, the FBI is looking to find out who sent classified information thru REGULAR EMAIL channels, which was not supposed to have been communicated AT ALL via email. And they don't necessarily need her emails to investigate that - they simply need to look at incoming/outgoing emails that were to/from her email address, which are already on the government servers.

Now, if SHE initiated sending something to a NON-government email address, they DO need her server files to investigate that. But the rest of the 'news stories' running around on this issue (like yours) are Op-Eds, and are not 'investigative journalism'. That doesn't mean there are not valid points in the Op Eds, but it's important to understand the difference between factual news and personal opinions.

 

[Lone Clone]

Uhhh.....that is the case whether the server is in Hillary's basement, or at Yahoo, Google or Centurylink. It is why email has NEVER been used by the government to send/receive formally classified information.

And that has been my point: if having and using a personal email account was against government policy, and a violation of government or State Dept policy, then why did anyone allow emails to be sent to that outside email address? That is an IT-related control, so if it violated policy, then why weren't all the outgoing emails blocked?

The simple answer is that it may not have been the PREFERRED policy, but there is apparently NOT a hard and fast rule about it, or they would NOT have allowed it to occur AT ALL.

Point #1 of your article is not relevant, because emails to and from government accounts from her personal email account ARE stored on government servers.

I completely agree that her actions were not a good idea, and if EVERY government employee starts running government communication over their personal email accounts, it DOES circumvent policies and FOIA. (I.e. Points #2 and #3 are valid) Any emails she sent to other government officials to PERSONAL email accounts, which CIRCUMVENTED government servers ARE an issue. Did that happen? Or is this investigation over emails she sent to/from other State Dept employees thru the government servers? Because that is NOT really an issue. NONE of those emails, sent via regular internet connections, are considered 'secure'.

As I presently understand the ACTUAL investigation, the FBI is looking to find out who sent classified information thru REGULAR EMAIL channels, which was not supposed to have been communicated AT ALL via email. And they don't necessarily need her emails to investigate that - they simply need to look at incoming/outgoing emails that were to/from her email address, which are already on the government servers.

Now, if SHE initiated sending something to a NON-government email address, they DO need her server files to investigate that. But the rest of the 'news stories' running around on this issue (like yours) are Op-Eds, and are not 'investigative journalism'. That doesn't mean there are not valid points in the Op Eds, but it's important to understand the difference between factual news and personal opinions.

I don't know if you're that deep in denial or simply uninformed.And I don't really care.

 

[Vroom_C14]

NYT's was one of the sources listed above as having 'smoking gun' information. This article from the NYT's really says nothing different (from this past Monday, 9/7):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...ation-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

It, again, states that she RECEIVED classified information to her server. The fact it went to her server is irrelevant; the point is that it was emailed AT ALL using non-secure government emails. If it had gone to her non-secure government email account, the result/problem is exactly the same - it makes no difference which external server or email it went to once off the secure systems. And, again, it was RECEIVED, not SENT.

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.
“Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”
​

Furthermore, it would not matter if she sent anything that was later considered 'classified' whether it was sent from a non-secure government email address or her personal email address; neither channel is considered 'secure'.

The mishmash of criticism regarding FOIA requests also seems rather dubious, as ANY email she sent to anyone else in a government department (i.e. TO a government email address) is by default IN their systems and ON their government servers. It would not seem to be a major problem to track emails which came from her address anywhere within the government server systems, and this means the sifting through her personal server files is somewhat redundant and unnecessary.

The only emails that would NOT be on government servers would be ones sent to other personal email addresses; IF others in the State Dept or other government functions were ALSO using personal email addresses, then it MAY make sense to search her personal emails. Otherwise, that's really not appropriate and should be considered an invasion of personal privacy.

 

[Joes Place]

I don't know if you're that deep in denial or simply uninformed.And I don't really care.

And you do not seem capable of addressing the points I've made.

You can look up State Dept spokesman John Kirby, who stated outright that at the time HC was SecState, use of personal email was 'discouraged, but not forbidden outright'. It was a poor decision on her part, but not illegal.

 

[Joes Place]

State Department official spokesperson John Kirby appeared live on CNN today and flat out stated that “she was not violating policy.” Like many other high ranking officials who came before and during her tenure, Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same. The news comes as a disappointment to those in politics who viewed the controversy as their best shot at catching up to Clinton, who has a massive lead in national polls both within her own party and across party lines.

Clinton turned over her email server to the FBI earlier this month in the name of full disclosure. But with the State Department having now confirmed that her use of that server violated no laws or policies, the FBI investigation is moot and will confirm the same.​

 

[Joes Place]

In a statement to Politico, an aide to Colin Powell, who served under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, confirmed that he too relied on a personal email account and did not know of any rules preventing him from doing so.
The statement from Powell’s camp reads:

He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State. He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.
He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world.
The account he used has been closed for a number of years. In light of new policies published in 2013 and 2014 and a December 2014 letter from the State Department advising us of these polices, we will be working with the department to see if any additional action is required on our part.

​

This precedent was acknowledged by a Clinton aide, who responded to the Times report by saying, “Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials.”
As for Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, a source close to her told Business Insider that she did not use a private email address during her time in Bush’s cabinet, but that may have been because she “barely used email” at all.
“Secretary Rice rarely used email during her tenure at State. On the very rare occasion she did, her State Department email was the vehicle for official communication,” the source reportedly said. “She did not use personal email for official communication as Secretary.”
However, in another statement released Tuesday to that same site, State Department Deputy Spokesperon Marie Harf said Clinton’s successor, John Kerry is “the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account.”


http://www.mediaite.com/online/secretary-of-state-colin-powell-also-used-personal-email-account/

 

[N_fuego]

A federal judge on Thursday said that Hillary Rodham Clinton did not comply with government policies in her exclusive use of a personal email account while she was secretary of state, challenging her longstanding position that she abided by the rules.

At a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, said that “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/u...n-didnt-follow-government-email-policies.html

 

[Joes Place]

A federal judge on Thursday said that Hillary Rodham Clinton did not comply with government policies in her exclusive use of a personal email account while she was secretary of state, challenging her longstanding position that she abided by the rules.

At a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, the judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, said that “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/u...n-didnt-follow-government-email-policies.html

If the judge is correct, then it appears HC is no different than other prior Secy's of State, and apparently none of them were informed by government officials that it was against the rules. So blaming this particular lapse on HC seems somewhat inappropriate since no one seemed to care for the better part of a decade....

Or, the judge is ruling on some minor procedural element (regarding FOIA), but applying that rule to ALL of her personal emails is not appropriate - it should only apply to those sent directly to '.gov' addresses OR to any other personal email accounts used by other government officials.

As a politician and public figure, I can completely understand why she would prefer to have her personal emails handled on a private/personal server vs. GMail or AOL. But using her personal email for communications with other government employees was not the smartest idea....instead of protecting her personal communications, it has opened them all up to possible FOIA scrutiny.

 

[N_fuego]

I'm not following your point that HC was no different than prior SOSs. None of them had a personal server exclusively for work correspondence.

 

[Greenway12]

Henry Kissinger did not use a government email account during his entire time as Secretary of State, therefore, it was ok for Hillary not to have one either!

 

[N_fuego]

In addition to the FOIA issue, HC didn't follow State Department guidelines.

When Mrs. Clinton became secretary in February 2009, the State Department’s general policy was “that normal day-to-day operations be conducted on an authorized” government computer. Nine months later, federal regulations were toughened to say that government agencies that allow employees to use nongovernment email accounts must “ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/u...n-didnt-follow-government-email-policies.html

 

[22*43*51]

If the judge is correct, then it appears HC is no different than other prior Secy's of State...

Did Condi and Colin wipe their servers clean after its contents were subpoenaed by the Federal government?

 

[Joes Place]

I'm not following your point that HC was no different than prior SOSs. None of them had a personal server exclusively for work correspondence.

Do you not understand that the 'personal server' is irrelevant here?

The issue is the use of a private email, whether that is off your own server, GMail, AOL or any other email server/service. If her emails had been on GMail, then the FOIA order would have gone to Google to obtain her emails from them, instead of going to her to produce them off of her personal server.

And the personal email account and server were used for both work and personal correspondence.

If you read some of the actual news stories, vs. the Op Eds, you will find that the FBI investigation is focused on how information within the State Department made it from secured communications channels onto unsecured '.gov' email systems/servers (and subsequently sent to HC's personal email address). The issue is that information getting to ANY of the unsecured government email servers, and whether it was formally listed as 'classified' when it was sent. That has little to do with HC's personal emails UNLESS she originated some of that information from her email account; and it would not matter if she were using a '.gov' email or not, if the classified information was sent by her on an unclassified system - that breach is still a breach whether she used her personal email account or not.

'.gov' email addresses, just because they are on a government server are NOT secure means of communication UNLESS they are being sent internally ONLY and not via normal internet routes....

 

[N_fuego]

Personal server, private server, what ever you want to call it, still against State Department guidelines. And now the FBI may start looking into the deleted emails.

Judge Sullivan also opened the door for the F.B.I., which is investigating whether there was classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s account, to expand its inquiry to pursue emails that she may have deleted. The judge ordered the State Department to ask the F.B.I. to give it any emails recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s private server that were not already in the State Department’s possession or that may be related to the lawsuit.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

• First Draft: For Hillary Clinton, Another Grilling About EmailsAUG. 18, 2015
• 
  
  F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary ClintonAUG. 14, 2015
• 
  
  Hillary Clinton Directs Aides to Give Email Server and Thumb Drive to the Justice DepartmentAUG. 11, 2015
• All Emails Were Provided, Hillary Clinton Says in StatementAUG. 10, 2015
• 
  
  Hillary Clinton Emails Take Long Path to ControversyAUG. 8, 2015